8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Halting COVID-19 Requires Collective, Decentralized, and Community-Led Responses

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many global health organizations are reliant on the funding provided by a few dozen high-income countries, making them fiscally insecure and fragile, especially during times of global crises. The COVID-19 pandemic could be an opportunity to move away from this status quo to a more decentralized, multipolar, and community-led approach. The global health community can take four immediate steps in response to the pandemic to start that paradigm shift now: support more regional and country-specific responses, convince national and regional business houses and philanthropies to make up for response funding shortfalls, leverage public health advocacy to improve investments in public health infrastructure, and put community leaders and members at the frontlines of mitigation efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big Data Analytics, New Technology, and Proactive Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Successful Elimination of Covid-19 Transmission in New Zealand

            To rapidly communicate short reports of innovative responses to Covid-19 around the world, along with a range of current thinking on policy and strategy relevant to the pandemic, the Journal has initiated the Covid-19 Notes series. Soon after initial descriptions of an outbreak in Wuhan, China, were shared, reports in late January 2020 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext) confirmed that Covid-19 was almost certain to become a serious pandemic. Despite New Zealand’s geographic isolation, we knew that introduction of SARS-CoV-2 was imminent because of the large numbers of tourists and students who arrive in the country each summer, predominantly from Europe and mainland China. Our disease models indicated that we could expect the pandemic to spread widely, overwhelm our health care system, and disproportionately burden indigenous Maori and Pacific peoples. New Zealand began implementing its pandemic influenza plan in earnest in February, which included preparing hospitals for an influx of patients. We also began instituting border-control policies to delay the pandemic’s arrival. New Zealand’s first Covid-19 case was diagnosed on February 26 (see Figure 1). That same week, the WHO–China Joint Mission’s report on Covid-19 (www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf) showed that SARS-CoV-2 was behaving more like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) than like influenza, which suggested that containment was possible. By mid-March, it was clear that community transmission was occurring in New Zealand and that the country didn’t have sufficient testing and contact-tracing capacity to contain the virus. Informed by strong, science-based advocacy, national leaders decisively switched from a mitigation strategy to an elimination strategy (www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/new-zealands-elimination-strategy-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-what-is-required-to-make-it-work). The government implemented a stringent countrywide lockdown (designated Alert Level 4) on March 26. During this period of exponentially increasing local cases, many people wondered whether these intensive controls would work. After 5 weeks, and with the number of new cases declining rapidly, New Zealand moved to Alert Level 3 for an additional 2 weeks, resulting in a total of 7 weeks of what was essentially a national stay-at-home order. In early May, the last known Covid-19 case was identified in the community and the person was placed in isolation, which marked the end of identified community spread. On June 8, the government announced a move to Alert Level 1, thereby effectively declaring the pandemic over in New Zealand, 103 days after the first identified case. New Zealand is now in the postelimination stage, which comes with its own uncertainties. The only cases identified in the country are among international travelers, all of whom are kept in government-managed quarantine or isolation for 14 days after arrival so they don’t compromise the country’s elimination status. Of course, New Zealand remains vulnerable to future outbreaks arising from failures of border-control and quarantine or isolation policies. Most jurisdictions pursuing containment (including mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Australia) have experienced such setbacks and have responded with rapid reescalation of control measures. New Zealand needs to plan to respond to resurgences with a range of control measures, including mass masking, which hasn’t been part of our response to date. New Zealand’s total case count (1569) and deaths (22) have remained low, and its Covid-related mortality (4 per 1 million) is the lowest among the 37 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Public life has returned to near normal. Many parts of the domestic economy are now operating at pre-Covid levels. Planning is under way for cautious relaxing of some border-control policies that may permit quarantine-free travel from jurisdictions that have eliminated Covid-19 or that never had cases (e.g., some Pacific Islands). The lockdown and consequent deferral of routine health care have undoubtedly had negative health effects, although total national weekly deaths declined during the lockdown (https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/pubhealthexpert/2020/07/10/weekly-deaths-declined-in-nzs-lockdown-but-we-still-dont-know-exactly-why/). To mitigate adverse economic effects, the government instituted a spending program to support businesses and supplement the incomes of employees who lost their jobs or whose jobs were threatened. There are several lessons from New Zealand’s pandemic response. Rapid, science-based risk assessment linked to early, decisive government action was critical. Implementing interventions at various levels (border-control measures, community-transmission control measures, and case-based control measures) was effective. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern provided empathic leadership and effectively communicated key messages to the public — framing combating the pandemic as the work of a unified “team of 5 million” — which resulted in high public confidence and adherence to a suite of relatively burdensome pandemic-control measures. Future lessons for New Zealand include the need for stronger public health agencies that can better assess and manage potential threats and for greater support for international health organizations, notably the World Health Organization.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health advocacy.

              In the medical profession, activities related to ensuring access to care, navigating the system, mobilizing resources, addressing health inequities, influencing health policy and creating system change are known as health advocacy. Foundational concepts in health advocacy include social determinants of health and health inequities. The social determinants of health (i.e. the conditions in which people live and work) account for a significant proportion of an individual's and a population's health outcomes. Health inequities are disparities in health between populations, perpetuated by economic, social, and political forces. Although it is clear that efforts to improve the health of an individual or population must consider "upstream" factors, how this is operationalized in medicine and medical education is controversial. There is a lack of clarity around how health advocacy is delineated, how physicians' scope of responsibility is defined and how teaching and assessment is conceptualized and enacted. Numerous curricular interventions have been described in the literature; however, regardless of the success of isolated interventions, understanding health advocacy instruction, assessment and evaluation will require a broader examination of processes, practices and values throughout medicine and medical education. To support the instruction, assessment and evaluation of health advocacy, a novel framework for health advocacy is introduced. This framework was developed for several purposes: defining and delineating different types and approaches to advocacy, generating a "roadmap" of possible advocacy activities, establishing shared language and meaning to support communication and collaboration across disciplines and providing a tool for the assessment of learners and for the evaluation of teaching and programs. Current approaches to teaching and assessment of health advocacy are outlined, as well as suggestions for future directions and considerations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                shadrack.frimpong@yale.edu
                Journal
                Int J Community Wellbeing
                Int J Community Wellbeing
                International Journal of Community Well-Being
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                2524-5295
                2524-5309
                9 June 2022
                9 June 2022
                : 1-5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Department of International Health, , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.47100.32, ISNI 0000000419368710, Yale School of Public Health, ; 464 Congress Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.5335.0, ISNI 0000000121885934, University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, UK
                [4 ]Cocoa360, Accra, Ghana
                [5 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0304-6189
                Article
                171
                10.1007/s42413-022-00171-9
                9178932
                42d4254d-a05d-443d-a21c-c06e38b4b034
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 September 2020
                : 30 May 2022
                Categories
                Commentary

                covid-19,global health,paradigm shift,governance,regional coordination,community involvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article